News Analysis CSIRO needs to be more open about multimillion dollar developments like nanotechnology, and do a better job at including the public in setting its research agenda, a new report has found.

The report is of a CSIRO-hosted workshop in Bendigo, regional Victoria, designed to elicit public views on the emerging science of nanotechnology, the science and technology of manipulating matter at the atomic scale.

As a result of the discussions, the CSIRO project team that organised the workshop drew up a check-list of community issues. The team said this could be part of CSIRO's response to community needs on technology.

Concerning nanotechnology

The workshop had 22 participants, about one-third nanotechnology researchers, the rest a mixture of other researchers and those not involved in research.

Dr Wendy Mee, one of the report authors and a member of the CSIRO project team, said one of the surprising findings was that many of the participants' concerns were seldom specific to nanotechnology.

The participants said they felt CSIRO needed to take account of regional concerns, in particular the impact of technology on jobs.

The project team was also surprised to find clear views about the role of CSIRO itself in such debates.

Mee, a social researcher who is under a 12 month contract with CSIRO from Melbourne's La Trobe University, said some participants were also concerned that commercial-in-confidence undertakings between CSIRO and industry could conflict with free and open public discussion at the workshop.

Mee said that such views could have been informed by recent debates over access to information on the location of genetically modified (GM) canola crop trials, and agreements between industry and research organisations on GM crops.

Mee said there had been growing concern within CSIRO about a possible backlash against nanotechnology as had occurred against GM crops.

And a feeling that engaging with the public early in such research was essential to preserve CSIRO's reputation as accountable, responsible and responsive.

"These are issues that people within CSIRO do openly talk about and we have discussed them in the project team," she said.

She said those responsible for directing CSIRO nanotechnology research wanted to ensure the public was going to support the research.

Clear and frank views

Mee said while participants welcomed public consultation they were concerned about why it was happening and that it should not become a public relations exercise.

When the workshop participants were recruited, for example, some asked whether CSIRO was trying to understand public concerns so they could pitch their information in a particular way, Mee said.

"They were also very keen that the results of the workshop were publicised."

The report, Nanotechnology: the Bendigo workshop, is available online via the CSIRO Minerals website.

Based on the views expressed at the workshop, the project team developed a 'community issues checklist' the team said could be part of CSIRO's response to community needs on technology.

The checklist included questions such as whether a risk-benefit analysis for the research had been conducted, what the social benefit was, whether it solved an existing problem and could this problem be solved in another way.

Limited parallels with GM debate

Dr Michael Barber, CSIRO's executive director of science planning, said it wasn't just CSIRO researchers who were concerned about what the public thought of nanotechnology.

He said the scientific community at large had taken the lead on engaging the public because the public could see nanotechnology's "disruptive" potential.

Mee said "disruptive science" was a term some people use to describe nanotechnology. It was not only likely to transform the way other sciences, such as biotechnology, were carried out, but to cause other big changes in society such as dramatic shifts in employment and new ethical dilemmas about human identity.

Barber said the scientific community was keen to ensure the significant benefits of nanotechnology were realised, so had been proactive in discussions on regulation and community understanding, and that the Bendigo workshop was part of that process.

As part of its ongoing public engagement, CSIRO also plans to hold a citizens' panel on nanotechnology in the state capital of Melbourne in December.

But Barber did not want to draw too many parallels between the debates with GM technology and nanotechnology. And he hesitated to describe the public response to GM technology as a 'backlash'.

"Certainly there have been lessons drawn from the debates about GMO [genetically modified organisms]," Barber told ABC Science Online.

But he said a lot of the battles associated with GM technology had been about issues such as commercial business practices.

"I personally think that you can make too much of the parallel of the GMOs and nanotechnology," he said.

Trust issues

Barber said the issue of trust in a research organisation was important. But debates, such as those over stem cells, had shown that lack of trust was often generated by things such as religious views.

"A lot of the concern about nanotechnology is highlighted by novels such as Michael Crichton's Prey which is not particularly good science," he said. "And therefore scientists are likely to dismiss reacting to that level because it's nonsensical."

"CSIRO does, in the end, speak for the view that the benefits science are important to the nation and that is something we hold very, very important to us," he said.

"We need to be realistic. You're unlikely to have everybody totally aligned."

Conflicts of interest

Barber said he was familiar with concerns about the impact of conflicts of interest between research organisations and commercial partners.

"That's a common issue that is right across the breadth of science today," said Barber. "Conflicts are always going to arise. The critical issue is how do you actually manage them and we believe in transparency."

He said that CSIRO websites indicated who was funding research. But there were practical problems of having everything in the open.